TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 925X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the appellate authority that in the financial year concerned, he had received the taxable amount Rs. 43,75,059.46/- on which, he had paid Rs. 3,70,229/- each for State G.S.T. and Central G.S.T. From the entries, as found in the diary recovered by the Special Investigation Branch, it was noticed that the petitioner had received much more advance than it was shown in the returns. From the documents recovered from the resort by the Special Investigation Branch, it was noticed that the petitioner had received Rs.17,95,000/-, whereas in the return he has shown advance of Rs. 3,73,983.05/- only. The appellate authority had assessed the tax amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- each for State G.S.T. and Central G.S.T., penalty amount of Rs. 3,60,000/- an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner. 4. The petitioner's premises were inspected by the Special Investigation Branch on 06.12.2017. The said resort is also used for organizing marriages and other functions. On the basis of the report submitted by the Special Investigation Branch, the notice under Section 74 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was issued to the petitioner demanding Rs.48,96,000/- amount of tax penalty and interest. The petitioner did not replied to the show cause notice. The petitioner also did not produce the relevant documents for assessing the correct tax from July, 2017 to March, 2018. 5. In view thereof, the Assessing Authority by the ex-parte order dated 11.11.2021 considering the turnover as one crore assessed C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner was not in a position to produce the relevant documents at the time of the raid by the Special Investigation Branch, nothing prevented him to produce all the relevant documents before the Assessing Authority in pursuance to the show cause notice issued to him. The petitioner never submitted the relevant documents before the Assessing Authority and the assessment order was an ex-parte order. 9. The Appellate Authority examined the record, which was submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner had filed the return for the financial year 2017-18 for the month of July, 2017 to March, 2018. In this return, it has been said that the petitioner had received Rs.43,75,059.46/- taxable amount and on which the Central G.S.T. and State G.S.T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, the appellate authority was of the view that because of these loose papers, no solid conclusion can be drawn. The petitioner had accepted before the appellate authority that in the financial year concerned, he had received the taxable amount Rs. 43,75,059.46/- on which, he had paid Rs. 3,70,229/- each for State G.S.T. and Central G.S.T. From the entries, as found in the diary recovered by the Special Investigation Branch, it was noticed that the petitioner had received much more advance than it was shown in the returns. From the documents recovered from the resort by the Special Investigation Branch, it was noticed that the petitioner had received Rs.17,95,000/-, whereas in the return he has shown advance of Rs. 3,73,983.05/- on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
